1                         Tlie    3?ropertry 

OF    THE                                                       i 

lliim  CWMTIM 

2ii2n:M7-i, 

BARTON    SQUARE,    SALEM. 

1 

#                                            H 

DEPOSITED 


—  IN    TlIK  — 


LIBRARY^^ 

—  flF    THK —  J  WC 

ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS' 


OX  THE  C0M3I0N 


MODE  OF  DEFENDING 


THE 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  TRINITY, 


A5D   THE 


UNION  OF  THE  TWO  NATURES  IN 


JESUS  CHRIST. 


By  G.  CLARK 


BOSTON; 

Fl'BUSHED  BY  IS^LiH  THOM.iS.  JH 

1817. 


MODE  OF  DEFENDING  THE  TRINITY. 


^npHERE  perhaps  never  was  a  doctrine  or  tenet  the  subject 
of  man's  investigation,  or  which  has  been  offered  to  the 
contemplation  of  the  human  mind,  more  apparently  doubtful 
than  the  doctrines  of  the  Trinity  in  Unity,  and  the  union  of 
the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Jesus  Christ ;  and^  when  I 
say  they  are  highly  disputable,  I  regard  this  declaration  with 
great  seriousness ;  because  it  appears  most  evidently,  that 
those  doctrines  make  no  part  of  the  subject  of  Divine  Reve- 
lation :  on  the  contrary,  that  their  whole  support,  or  pretend- 
ed support  from  thence,  is,  upon  one  or  all  of  the  following 
grounds. 

1.  Upon  arbitrary  surmises. 

2.  Upon  voluntary  and  unfounded  deductions)  and  infer- 

ences.  v 

3.  Upon  disingenuous  and  artful  comparisons. 

4.  Upon  capricious  or  misconceived  expositions. 

5.  Upon  interpolations,  or  alterations   of  the  Sacred   Re- 

cords. 

6.  Upon  palpable  mistranslations  of  them. 

7.  Upon  dogmatical  postulata,  in  many  instances  contrary 

both  to  Reason  and  Revelation. 
1st.  Upon  arbitrary  surmises.     Instances  of  this  kind  are 
very  plentiful. — We  may  advert  to  the  use  which  is  made  of 
the  Hebrew  word  Aleim. — We  are  told  that   this    word  di- 
rects our  views  to  3.  plurality  oi  persons  in  the  Deity  ;  and 
this  is  contended  for  by  Trinitarians,  in  direct  opposition  to 
the  evidence  of  the  Seventy  translators,  in  every  instance — 
who  uniformly  render  it  by 'the  singular  noun  ©"j — against 
the  frequent  examples  we  have  of  the  use  of  it  of  single  per.- 
sons,  Exod.  vii.  1. — 1  Kings  xi.  4.  33.— Psal.  xlv.  6,  7,  &Co 
—against  the  almost  constant  use  of  it  with  singular  verbs, 
and  pronouns — against  the  authority  of  the  apostle  Paul,  Heb. 
i.  8,   9.  and  against  the  authority   of   Christ   himself,  who 
uses  a  singular  noun  as  the  true  translation  of  it,  Mark  xii.  29. 
We  may  also  advert,  in  proof  of  this  charge  of  surmise, 
to  the  use  which  is  made  of  the  pronoun  Us^  Gen.   i»  26. 
"J^et  us  make  man,"  Stc.     And  this  against  the  laws  of  reason 


and  common  sense,  which  assure  us  that  God  doth  not  con- 
sult any  one — that  he  cannot  consult  himself.  It  is  ph>inly  a 
mere  figurative  mode  of  speech,  by  which  God,  who  work- 
eth  all  things  according  to  the  council  of  his  own  will,  is  rep- 
resented as  consulting  and  deliberating,  before  he  determines. 

These  are  arbitrary  surmises,  in  that  the  Scriptures  never 
declare  that  the  word  Aleim,  points  out  a  plural  personality  in 
the  Deity  ;  or  that  when  God  said,  Let  us  make  man,  the 
first  person  in  the  Godhead  spake  to  the  second  and  third. — 
If  this  charge  be  denied,  let  it  be  done  by  shewing,  that  the 
Scriptures  somtwhere  prove,  that  by  the  plural  form  of  the 
word  Aleim,  is  intended  rather  a  plurality  of  persons,  than  of 
powers  ;  and  that  the  use  of  the  plural  pronoun,  is  rot  a  fig- 
urative mode  of  representing  to  us  the  wisdom  of  the  Divine 
determination. — And  let  the  proofs  which  shall  be  adduced 
to  these  poin  s  be  plain  and  opposite  or  we  shall  not  be  able 
to  withdraw  the  charge  of  surmise  and  conjecture. 

But  the  most  dangerous  of  these  surmises,  is  to  be  found 
ivith  those,  who  contend  for  the  supreme  Deit}"  of  our  blessed 
Lord,  because  no  one  else  could  have  merit  sufficient  to  atone 
for  the  sins  of  mankind — no  one  else  would  be  equal  to  the 
arduous  task — no  one  else  could  prevail  with  the  Dtity  for 
pardon  and  reconciliation  !  This  is  an  arbit  iry  and  an  im- 
plicit surmise,  if  there  ever  was  one.  It  is  arbitrary,  because 
it  stands  aloof  both  with  reason  and  Scripiure  ;  it  is  mplicity 
because  the  least  examination  would  shtw  its  impious  absur- 
dity, and  refuse  it  credit.  Ho/y  Scripture  knows  it  not  ;  the 
Scriptures  never  say  that  God  wanted  full  satisfaction — that 
he  wanted  one  of  infinite  merit  to  redeem  mankind  ;  whereas, 
if  this  were  a  truth,  it  would  be  of  such  singular  importance, 
that  every  pa ^'e  of  the  Divine  Writings  would  teach  it  ;  it 
would  not  be  left  to  the  uncertain  fate  of  inference  and  de- 
duction. It  is  a  dogma  wh'iclr  reason  totally  reprobates  : — 
Jieason  tells  us,  as  the  Scriptures  do,  that  God  is  willing  to 
receive  the  returning  sinner,  without  an  adequate  satisfaction  ; 
which  could  have  no -other  end,  but  to  exclude  Divine  mercy. 
Beason  tells  us,  that  God  could  not  satisfy  himself — that  if 
Christ  were  the  true  God,  he  would  as  much  want  satisfaction 
as  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Ghost — that  Divine  justice  is 
one  ;  and  that  even  admitting  the  Trinitarian  hypothesis,  the 
justice  of  God  the  Son  would  be  the  same,  and  would  as 
much  want  satisfaction  as  the  justice  of  the  Father  and  Holy 
Ghost.  And  here  reason  would  add,  that  it  is  impossible  thp 
greatest  and  best  of  all  Beings,  the  wonderful  cause  and  origiji 


of  all  things,  could  be  made  subject  to  his  own  law,  and  could 
be  a  criminal  ;  and  that  if  it  were  possible,  it  would  be  use- 
less ;  because  God  may  as  well  pardon  without  satisfaction, 
as  pardon  with  a  satisfaction  made  by  himself. 

SJ.  Upon  voluntiry  and  unfounded  deductions  and  inferen- 
ces. Aij  that,  because  Christ  restored  the  dead  to  life,  and 
did  other  acts  of  omnipotence,  he  must  therefore  be  God, 
without  considering,  or  without  believing  the  positive  and  un- 
equivocal declarations  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  that  the 
power  which  he  exercised  was  not  his  own,  but  the  omnipo- 
tence of  God,  who  had  sent  him.  The  Scriptures  do  indeed 
ascribe  to  him  the  works  of  Omnipotence  ;  but  the  same 
Scriptures  tell  us  that  all  power  in  heaven  and  earth  w?^?,  given 
to  \\\m — that  the  works  which  he  did  were  not  his,  but  the 
Father'' s  who  sent  him — tlvat  he  could  do  nothing'  of  himself, 
thai  the  Father  who  dwelt  in  him  did  the  works — that  they 
were  brought  into  eflfcct  by  the  fnger  or  spin  toi  God.  And 
that  the  miracles,  and  wondfus,  and  signs,  which  evi- 
denced the  mission  of  our  I^ord,  were  ?mrac/esy  and  ivonders, 
and  signs,  vvliich  GOD  did  by   him.     Acts  ii.  22. 

3d.  Upon  disingenuous  and  artful  comparisons.  By  shew- 
ing, for  instance,  Irom  one  of  Paul's  epistles,  that  Jesus  Christ 
has  ti.e  appellation  God,  and  that  in  another  he  is  denominat- 
ed a  Man  ;  and  so  proving  that  he  is  both  Got/ and  Man.  Or  by 
shewingihat  God  is  called  a  Saviour,  and  Christ  is  called  a  Sav- 
iour, and  therefore  concluding  that  he  must  be  God.  Or  by 
shewing  that  he  must  be  God,  because  the  same  acts  are  as- 
cribed both  to  Christ  and  to  God  ;  not  considering  that  our 
Lord's  appearances  were  in  the  Divine  authority  and  power ; 
and  not  considering,  that  for  the  same  reason,  the  same  names 
and  acts  have  been  in  the  Scriptures  applied  and  ascribed  to 
Moses  and  to  God. 

Thus,  Numb.  xii.  3.  "Now  the  man  Moses  was  very 
meek  "  &c.  Here  Moses  is  called  a  Man.  Compare  this 
with  Exod.  vii.  1.  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  see  I 
have  made  thee  a  God,  Meim,  to  Pharaoh  ;  and  Aaron  thy 
brother  shall  be  thy  prophet." 

So,  Numb  xii.  IL  Moses  is  prayed  to  by  Aaron..^ — 
"Aaron  said  unto  Moses,  Alas,  my  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  lar 
not  the  sin  upon  us  wherein  we  have  done  f jolishly,  mid 
wherein  we  have  sinned,"  &c.  And  Exod.  x.  16,  17.  ''Then 
Pharaoh  called  for  Moses  and  Aaro;i  in  haste,  and  he  said, 
I  have  sinned  af^ainst  the  Lord  your  God,  and  against  you  ; 
now  therefore,  forgive  1  pray  thee,  my  sin  this  once,"  &c. 


The  deliverance  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  Egypt,  i( 
attributed  to  Moses  and  to  God  ;  Exod.  xxxii.  7.  "And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,  Go  get  thee  down  ;  for  thy  people 
which  thou  broughtest  out  of  the  land  of  Ee:ypt,  have  cor- 
rupted themselves."  And  Exod.  xxxiii.  1.  Deut.  v.  6. 
*'l  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which  brought  thee  out  of 
the    land  of  Egypt,"  &c. 

Moses  is  also  joined  with  the  Supreme  Deity  as  the  object 
of  faith,  Exod.  xiv.  31.  "And  the  people  feared  the  Lord, 
and  believed  the  Lord  and  his  servant  Moses." 

Deut.xi.  13.  Moses  is  represented  as  using  language  of  him- 
self, ivhich  if  used  bv  Christ,  would  be  considered  as  a  very 
ample  proof  of  his  supreme  Godhead.  "And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  if  ye  shall  hearken  diligently  unto  mi/  comtJiandyicnts, 
which  I  command  you  this  &dv^  to  love  the  Lord  your  God, 
and  to  serve  him  with  all  your  heart,  and  with  all  your  soul : 
that  I  will  give  you  the  rain  of  your  land  in  his  due  season, 
&c.     And  1  will  send  grass  in  thy  fields  f  >r  thy  cattle,"  &c. 

4th.  Upon  capricious  or  misconceived  expositions  of  words 
and  language. — The  word  Immanuel^  for  instance,  which  is 
in  plain  English  God  with  us,  is  made  to  signify  that  Christ 
is  both  God  and  Man — whereas  the  word  conveys  no  such 
ir^Heaning,  signifies  no  such  thing  ;  but  points  out  to  us  what 
it  expresses—  that  when  Christ  was  in  the  world,  God  was 
with  us  :  not  becau'^e  Christ  was  God,  but  because  "Goi> 
was  in  Christ  reconcihng  the  world  unto  himself,"  2  Cor. 
V.  19.  Or  as  it  is  elsewhere  expressed  more  emphatically— 
"God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
and  with  power  ;  who  went  about  doing  good,  &c.  for  God 
was  with  HIM,"  A.cts  x.  38.  And  so  Zacharias,  Luke  i.  68. 
"Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  for  having  visited  dLwd 
redeemed  his  pecple^  having  raised  up  an  horn  of  salvation  for 
them  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David." 

And  when  our  Lord  declares  his  inferiority  to  the  Father, 
wc  are  told  that  he  speaks  as  mediator,  that  he  speaks  of  him- 
self as  he  was  man,  not  as  he  was  God — And  thus  they  make 
our  blessed  Lord  to  be  perpetually  on  the  quibble  ;  sometimes 
speaking  as  mediator,  sometimes  as  God,  sometimes  as  man, 
sometimes  as  both  God  and  man  ;  by  which  means  the  excel- 
lency of  our  Lord's  character  is  ei^ceedingly  degraded. 

Besides,  every  man  of  common  sense  must  see  and  feci 
liow  trifling  and  impertinent  such  declarations  as  these  are, 
M'hen  considered  as  answers  to  rational  arguments. — The 
?5criptures  do  not.  in  any  one  instan';Cr  distinguish  the  wisdoi'ri 


«r  power  of  Christ  as  he  is  God,  from  his  wisdom  ind  power 
as  he  is  man  ;  or  from  his  wisdom  t>nd  power  as  God-man  or 
mediator.  And  if  the  Scriptures  do  not  so  distingui-sh, 
where  is  our  authoriry  to  do  it  ? 

Again,  it  is  said  upon  the  authority  of  Phil,  ii,  6.  that 
Christ  is  equal  with  God — But  what  do  they  mean  by  being 
equal  with  God  ?  Do  they  mean  by  the  term  God  here,  the 
whole  Godhead  ?  No  ;  for  Christ  being  one  in  the  God- 
head, he  would  then  be  equal  with  the  whole  Godhead, 
Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost,  and  so  equal  with  himself ; 
which  is  nonsense  say  they. — The  meanmg  then  must  be, 
that  the  person  of  the  Son,  was  equal  with  the  persons  of  the 
Father  and  Holy  Ghost.— -But  here  again  we  may  inquire, 
what  authority  we  have  to  say  that  the  Father  and  H  ly  Ghost, 
in  exclusion  of  the  Son,  are  called  by  the  absolute  term 
God  ^ — And  may  we  not  ask,  if  this  is  the  fact,  why  we 
are  not  told  so  ?  VV  hy  we  were  left  to  find  it  out  by  a  train 
of  uncertain  deductions  ?  I  say  uncertain  deductions — for, 
where  is  an  infallible  rule  ?  Where  is  our  certain  authority  ? 
Who  told  us  it  was  so?  Is  it  in  the  Scriptures?  Is  it  in  Reason? 
Is  it  in  some  General  Council,  or  Synod  ?  Or,  is  it  the  empty 
fabrication  of  some  visionary  speculatist,  or  metaphysician. 

And  sometimes  the  meanuig  of  the  Scripture  is  miscon*^ 
ceived  ;  as  1  John  v.  20.  where  Christ  is  supposed  to  be  de- 
liominated  the  true  God  and  eternal  life  ;  whereas  that  pas- 
sage plainly  means,  that  Christ  hath  given  us  an  understand- 
ing that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true,  that  is  the  true  God  : 
and  that  we  are  in  him  that  is  true  ;  that  is,  we  are  in  the  true 
God — How  ?  Why,  IN  or  through  Jesus  Christ — And 
this  true  one,  in  whom  we  so  are  in  or  through  Christ,  is  the 
TRUE  God  and  eternal  life — See  our  Lord's  own  words, 
lohn  xvii.  3,  "  This  is  eternal  it/e,  to  know  thee  the  onfy 
TRUE  God,  and  Jesus  Christ  whom  thou  hast  sent." — The 
unlearned  reader  should  be  informed,  that  the  word  even,  in 
the  passage  1  John  v.  20.  is  not  in  the  origmal  text,  but  is 
suppiied  by  the  translators,  and  totally  subverts  the  apostle's 
meaning. 

So,  "  The  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased  with 
his  own  blood,"  Acts  xx.  28.^- As  though  he  who  only  hath 
IMMORTALITY,  should  havc  shed  his  blood  for  the  restora-* 
tion  of  mankind— Impious  id^a  !  Tne  Trinitarian  starts  back 
with  horror,  and  denies  the  position. — He  says  God  did  not 
die — he  tells  us  it  is  called  the  blood  of  God,  because  God 
was  personally  united  to  flesh  and  blood, — But  the  Scripture 


never  speaks  of  any  such  personal  union — And  it  may  with 
much  more  propriety  be  contended,  that  it  is  called  the  blood 
of  God,  because  the  death  of  Christ,  the  shedding  of  his 
blood,  was  the  eft'ect  of  the  goodness  and  love  of  God. — 
**  God  (says  the  apostle)  commended  his  love  towards  us,  in 
that  while  we  were  yet  sinners,  Christ  died  for  us."  And 
Rom.  iii.  24,  25,  "  The  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ; 
whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation,  througu  faith 
in  his  Ifiood.^^  Those  who  are  dispossessed  of  prejudice,  will, 
without  much  difficulty,  estimate  the  comparative  merits  of 
these  two  observations. 

And  1  John  iii.  16,  "  Hereby  perceive  we  the  love  of 
God,  because  he  laid  down  his  life  for  us.*'  This  is  sup- 
posed to  prove  the  Deity  of  Christ,  because  the  text  inti- 
mates that  God  laid  down  his  life  for  us  ;— -but  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  the  words  "  oj  God,"  are  not  to  be  found  in 
the  best  Greek  manuscripts,  nor  in  the  very  printed  Greek 
text  we  generally  use — But  if  the  words  are  genuine,  the 
sense  is  very  clear,  as  speaking  of  the  love  of  God,  because  he 
(Christ)  laid  down  his  life  for  us  ;  and  would  then  be  exactly 
parallel  to  verse  9  and  10,  in  the  next  chapter.  "  In  this  was 
manifested  the  love  of  God  towards  us  ;  because  that  God 
sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world,  that  we  might  live 
through  him. — Herein  is  love  ;  not  that  we  loved  God,  but 
that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
©ur  sins." — The  love  of  God  being  expressed  in  sending  his 
Son  to  submit  to  death  for  our  advantage. 

5th.  Upon  interpolations  and  alterations  of  the  Sacred 
Records. — As  in  the  instance  of  John  v.  7,  and  1  Tim.  iii. 
16,  two  of  the  Trinitarian  bulwarks  :  both  of  which  have 
every  thing  against  them,  which  can  render  ^ny  thing  suspi- 
cious and  exceptionable. 

6th.  Upon  palpable  mistranslations  of  them, 

7th,  Upon  dogmatical  pu^tulat a,  unsupported  by  Scripture  ; 
and  in  many  instances,  contrary  both  to  Reason  and  Revela- 
tion,— And  this  is  to  be  seen  in  such  declarations  as  teach, 
that  the  union  of  the  man  Christ  was  with  the  second  per- 
son in  the  Trinity,  when  the  Scripture  in  every  instance  re- 
presents that  union  to  have  been  with  the  Father — and - 
in  such  as  teach  that  this  union  was  ^  personal  union,  whereas 
the  Scripture  represents  it  as  an  union  by  the  indwelling  of 
God. 

This  is  also  the  case  where  they  would  teach  us,  that  txvo 
natures  can  be  one  person  ;  the  one  mortal,  the  other  immor- 


9' 

tal :  the  one  passible^  the  other  impassible  :  the  one  finite^ 
the  other  m^/;?7<?.— That  one  of  thesok  "  the  humati**  was  a 
mere  nature,  without  a  person — and  yet  Christ  is  represen- 
ted by  them  as  frequently  speaking  in  his  human  capacity. 

Th.it  persons  in  the  Trinii3%  are  not  to  be  considered  in  the 
common  sense  of  persons^ — by  which  they  destroy  the  Divine 
persoiiahty  altogether  ;  -  and  yet  that  one  of  these  persons  sor- 
ved  for  two  natuies  in  one  Christ. 

That  THREb:  persons  subsist  in  one  common  nature  ;  and 
that  thia  is  essentially  necessary  to  be  known — -which  is  in- 
deed passing  strange,  when  we  consider  that  the  Scriptures 
so  frequently  and  expressly  speak  of  the  absolute  Unity  of  God, 
and  yet  leave  us  no  express  declarations  that  in  that  unity  is  a 
Trinity ! 

A  reader  unused  to  theological  disquisitions,  will  stand 
aghast,  and  enquire  how  it  is  possible  that  men  should  believe 
positions  so  much  above  reason,  without  rational  evidence  of 
the  fact  ?  It  may  also  be  asked,  whether  those  vi^ho  so  earnestly 
contend  for  the  Trinity,  do  under  these  circumstances  really 
believe  it  ?— 'It  has  been  very  much  doubted  whether  men  can 
seriously  and  sincerely  say  oae  thing  (as  to  speculative  points 
of  religion)  and  believe  another — It  seems  to  me  very  proba- 
ble that  men  may  do  so — and  I  think  it  has  been,  in  a  great 
measure,  the  case  with  Trinitarians — For  while  men  have  en- 
deavoured to  support  an  equality  of  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  with  the  Father,  they  have  in  their  gen  ral  views,  ideas,  . 
and  practice,  paid  Divine  honours  to  the  Father  as  the  su^ 
preme  ; — and  although  they  contend  for  the  personality  and 
equality  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  rather  pray  to  the  Father  to 
send  his  Holy  Spirit  upon  them,  than  to  the  Holy  Ghost  to 
influence  them  : — This  may  appear  strange,  but  it  is  no  more 
strange  than  true,  it  is  pretty  well  known  that  Christianity 
has  been  grCvitly  corrupted  from  its  original  purity  and  sim- 
plicity ;  darkness  has  been  called  light,  and  light  darkness  ; 
the  world  has  long  been  immerged  in  a  thick  cloud  of  ignor- 
ance and  superstition. — But  amidst  all  this  darkness  and  ig- 
norance, this  1  verily  believe  to  be  a  fact,  that  in  true  and  un- 
disguised sentiment  the  whole  Christian  world  has  been  and 
is,  Unitarian.  — Truth  is  great,  and  will  prevail  in  tlie  heart  of 
the  sincere  Christian,  although  his  tongue  m«iy  deny  it — and 
it  is  to  the  iinind^  as  the  seat  of  truth  and  error,  that  God  looks, 
I  am  inclined  to  thiivk  that  there  never  yet  was  a  Trinitarian, 
who  did  not  in  his  mind  pay  that  honour  and  distinction  t» 
God  even  the  Father,  that  he  did  not  to  either  the  Son  or  the 
2 


10 

Holy  Ghost. — The  ascription  of  supreme  honour  and  glory 
is  invariably  to  the  great  Father  of  all :  although  ihe 
tongue  pleads  for  the  ionsubstantiality,  and  co-equality  of  the 
Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  And  this  observation  may  serve  as  an 
apology  For  our  Trniitarian  bretliren,  and  does  them  the  jus- 
tice of  an  excuse,  without  any  imputation  upon  their  sincerity : 
For  if  the  prejudices  of  education  will  force  an  implicit  faith/ 
i:xnd  external  conlcssion,  contrary  to  the  powerful  impulse  of 
truth  upon  the  mind,  in  acts  of  religious  worship ;  we  have 
only  to  admire  the  goodness  of  him  who  keeps  the  mind  un- 
contaminatcd  by  error,  amidst  the  various  opinions  and  in- 
ventions  of  men. 

The  ill  effect,  however,  of  the  doctrine,  is  but  too  visible 
in  the  weapons   it  furnishes  the  deist  with — in  the  doubt  and 

^dii^tress  it  occasions  to  many  honest  minds — and  in  the  horrid 
ideas*  that  attend  an  inadequate  know^ledge  of  it. 

The  question  between  us,  is  not  whether  there  are,  or  are 
not,  certain  expressions  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament, 
■which  might  be  accommodated  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity, 
there  no  doubt  are  ;  and  it  would  perhaps  be  difficult  to  con- 
ceive a  doctrine,  which  particular  passages  of  the  Scriptures 
might  not  be  accommodated  to.  But  the  question  is,  Do 
the  Scriptures,  in  any  one  instance,  expressly  teach  that  there 
are  three  persons  in  the  one  undivided  essence  of  the  Trinity  ? 
The  answer  is  palpable — they  do  not  ;  and  therefore  it  comes 
not  to  the  point  before  us,  to  contend,  that  a  passage  in  Mo- 
ses,  and  a  passage  in  Paul  put  together,  might  be  so  under- 
stood as  to  indicate,  at  first  sight,  the  Deity  of  Christ. — Nor 
does  it  fill  up  the  proof,  first  of  all  to  take  for  granted  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  a  doctrine  of  Revelation,  and  then 
to  shew  that  a  passage  in  Paul  does  not  cow^mJ^c^  it. — Where 
is  the  passage  which  declares  that  in  God  are  three  distinct 
perso?Js  ?  Or  that  the  Son  is  one  in  essence  with  the  Father  ? 
Or  with  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  Or  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost 
arc  in  any  od\er  sense  one  ?  Where  is  it  said,  or  supposed, 
that  the  Father  is  iht  Jrst  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  Son  the 

^awzr/ person,  the  Holy  Ghost  the  third  ?  Does  it  appear  in 

*  •'  Clirist  is  ascendotl  up  to  Heaven, 
'•  The  Comforter  to  us  is  given  : 
"  One  God's  divided  in  thrpe, 
"  Without  which  none  can  saved  be." 

See  a  Grulj-strocl  poem,  in  llie  hands  of  half  the  ohl  women  and 
chifdrcu  in  the  kingdom,  called  raradise  Lost  and  Paradise  Hejrained. 


11 

Holy  Writ,  that  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  are  as  constantly 
the  objects  of  prayer  and  praise  as  the  Father  is  ?  Or  does . 
not  supreme  adoration  appear  there  to  be  the  prerogative  of 
the  Father  only  ?  Does  it  there  appear,  that  the  Son  is  the 
foundation  of  wisdom,  power  and  goodness;  oris  the  Father 
the  single  indisputed  source  of  these  perfections  ?  In  all  the 
past  ages  of  the  world,  where  is  the  Holy  Spirit  represented 
as  acting  or  speaking  as  Him  who  is  supremely  God  ?  Do  the 
Scriptures  ever  represent  him  in  the  personal  character  of  God? 
or  as  any  thing  distinct  from  God?  Or  rather -do  they  not 
speak  of  the  Spirit  as  the  power,  influence,  or  energy  of  God  ? 
Or  do  they  not  represent  the  one  living  and  true  God,  as  act- 
ing and  speaking  in  and  hy\\\^  Spirit?  If  the  Son  were  the 
supreme  God,  equally  God  with  the  Father ;  if  the  Holy 
Spirit  were  the  supreme  God,  equally  God  with  the  Father — 
would  not  the  Son,  would  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  appear  through- 
out the  Scriptures  in  those  characters  ?  Would  the  Supreme 
Being  be  constantly  represented  as  one,  and  that  one  as  havm 
ing  a  spirit,  if  that  spirit  were  as  supremely  God,  as  he  is  God 
whose  spirit  it  is?  Do  not  the  Scriptures  represent  God  sim- 
ply and  absolutely  as  speaking  of  the  Spirit—  but  do  the  Scrip- 
tures ever  represent  God  simply  and  absolutely  as  speaking  of 
the  Father  ?  And  why  is  not  this  the  case,  if  the  Spirit  is 
equally  supremely  God  with  the  Father  ?  Does  not  the  Old 
Testament  throughout  speak  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  spirit  of  Je- 
hovah, as  the  spirit  of  Aleim  ?  Does  not  this  particle  of.  in- 
dicate that  the  Spirit  belongs  to,  and  is  not  a  person  co-essen- 
tial with  Jeliovah  ?  And  does  not  this  shew  that  the  Spirit  is 
not  the  Supreme  Being,  in  the  sense  in  which  Jehovah  is  the 
Supreme  Being?  Arc  not  love,  benevolence,  wisdom,  power, 
goodness,  mercy,  attributed  to  the  Father?  But  are  benev- 
olence, wisdom,  power,  or  mercy,  even  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  ? 
Is  it  ever  said  that  the  Spirit  is  omnipotent?  omniscient?  or 
merciful?  just?  or  good?  Or  are  Christians  ever  denom- 
inated the  church,  the  people,  or  the  servants  of  the  Holy 
Ghost?  And  are  not  all  these  deficiences  proofs,  that  ideas  of 
co-equality,  co-essentially,  distinct  personality  in  the  Deity, 
Trinity  in  Unity,  and  Unity  in  Trinity,  are  children  of  the 
imagination,  the  offspring  of  fanciful  philosophy,  equally  des- 
titute both  of  evidence  and  of  truth  ? 

And  with  regard  to  the  Deity  of  our  Lord — Let  it  be 
shewn  where  he  ever  spake  of  himself  as  possessing  more 
essences  than  one  ?  As  having  in  tivo  natures  or  essences,  ojie 
person  ?  Or  as  being  in  his  own  person  the  very  and  eternal 


12 

God,  and  a  Man,  the  work  of  Goal's  hands?  Or  where  he 
has  distinguishtd    himstlf  as  God,    from  himself  as  Man  f 
And  if  no  proof  can  be  given   where  he  so  spake  ol  himself, 
let  some  plain  and  indisputable  pr  >ols  be  adduced  where  his 
apostles  or  disciples  have  so  spoken  ?   Let  it  be  sht  wn  where, 
distinguishing    his  manhood   from    his  G'idlicad,   our   L(»rd 
claimed  tqnnl  dominion,  equal   supreni.icy  with   the  Fathtr  ? 
And  w  here  he  has  spoken  of  the  Hcij  Ghost  as  one  in  essence, 
dominion,  and  supremacy  vvith  the  F.ther  and  liiniNelf  ?    Let 
it  be   made  out  saiisfactorily,  th.it  when  he  dedartd  the  su- 
perior greatnesrj  of  the  Father,  and  that  he  dc  rlv^d  his  wibdom, 
his  power,  and   his  authority  from  him,  either  th  t  he  meant 
nothing,  or  that  he  did   not  spcdk  of  hiiviself,  but  only  of  a 
part  oi  himscli  ■?.     And   that   wlien  he  declared    "'Thr  Father 
is  greater  than  1,*'  he  meant  that  tlie  Father  was  ^^r^'o^er  ;  but 
was  nevertheless  no   more    than  equal  ?     In  a  word,  let  it  be 
shewn  that  the  Great  and  Eternal  iiod,    possessing    one    un- 
derstanding, one  mind,  one  will ;  the  first  person  in  that  Dt  ity 
was  full  of  wrath,  thcsecond  person  in  that  Deiiy  was  full  of 
mercy,  and  the  third  person  was  willing    to  assist  the  second 
in  quenching  the  flames  kin.  hd  by  the  urath  of   the  first. — - 
Let   it    be   shew  n   that    Divine  justice    is  (ine — and    that  the 
second  person,  assisted  by  the  thircS,  aciually  satisfied   ali  the 
demands  of  justice  in  the  fir->t.     Bur  let  it  be  also  shewn  that 
the  justice  of  the  third  was  satisfied  b\  the  inicrvension  and 
mediation  of   the  secoiid  ;    and  ihat  the  jnsti  e  of  the  second 
was  ever  satisfied  at  all,  either  by  a  sacriiice  .  id  offering  made 
of  himself,  by  himself,  to   h'ms<lf  or  by   wliat  other  means  ; 
or  shew  that  no  such   satisiaction    was  required  ?     And  tlien 
that  the  justice  of  the   second,  which  was  the  same  with  the 
justice   of  the  firt:t  person,  was  not   so  ri,ind  as  the  justice  of 
the  first,  that  is,  th,at  he  v/as  not  so  rigid  as  itself  was  ?  These 
things   done,   the  author  will  yield  the  palm  to  Thuth,  and 
confess  its  inscrutable  and  uncoi>qutr.ible  power  ;   but  'tillth'S 
i>e  done,  he  nuist   rtsist  the  inflmnce  of  Errors  so  apparently 
opposite  to  common  observation  aijd  common  sense — Errors 
which    liave   nothing  to    recoi7»mend   them  but  mystery  and 
tradition,  except  that  they  are  the  high  road  to  the  temples 
of  WEALTH  and  power.* 

*  Th''!  luttr-r  |»rsr}  of  (his  spiifeiico  rpf  rs  to  t!ie  ecclesiaslical  estab- 
li'-V.mertt  in  h.?:f^l  ui>'  ■  If  ia  '.!«;pec},  Ihaf  1  •  suin.'  c'!)n(liti!>ns  <»f  prefer- 
ment, >^LicLi  are  rc(,uired  tliMo,  will  long  be  uukii'jun  ia  this  couutryr 


^% 


t-v^ 


